BG> whilst M34F-M34F was only 26400 at best from here.

RS> I have gone back to your message after that and it doesnt
RS> say that. Most of what you said was about the %L value
RS> reports which we now know are completely meaningless.

Yeah, like I said to Bill, I don't recall any mention of that.

RS> Hopefully Paul will do a log extract on the speeds. You havent actually
RS> said how many times you actually called Paul M34F/M34F either.

He has to provide dates + times for that.

RS> So you havent got a SHRED of evidence that the USR/USR is better there.

BG> On my (poor) lines, USR-USR is clearly better.

RS> I'm not convinced that you actually have the evidence to substantiate that
RS> claim unless you did make lots of M34F/M34F calls to Paul the day you had
RS> it. You certainly didnt even say that speed detail previously, so I should
RS> really have said that you hadnt presented a shred of evidence to 
RS> substantiate
RS> the claim that M34F/M34F does worse on calls from you to Paul than USR/USR.

RS> I think its more likely you made to few M34F/M34F calls to say much.

Still, any calls are better than nothing.  However, if what he says
is true, USR->M34F is better than M34F->M34F AND better than USR->USR
(although the last USR->USR could be just because he didn't have his
bug-fixed ROMs available at the time we were doing USR->USR testing).

Which is an interesting way of saying that USR is best for outgoing
calls, M34F is best for incoming calls.  :-)  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---